#Internet censorship in India

[richdadpoor]

Montana Compares Banned TikTok to 'Cancer-Causing Radio'

Montana’s lawsuit-hungry attorney general Austin Knudsen wants US courts to think of TikTok less like a light-hearted home for viral trends and more akin to the harbinger of a life-threatening disease. In recent court filings defending his state’s unprecedented ban on the short-form video app, Knudsen compared TikTok to a “cancer-causing radio,” something he said lawmakers would likewise have a…

[theculturedmarxist]

Maybe this has something to do with it

MARUTHONKARA, India: It was more than two weeks before doctors even realised what they were treating, the fourth outbreak in five years of the lethal, brain-swelling Nipah virus in India’s Kerala region. By then, hundreds of people had been exposed to the bat pathogen.

 Halting the disease’s spread required deploying an army of workers, who put this village and eight others on partial lockdown for two weeks, surveyed more than 53,000 houses for signs of illness and tracked down 1,200 people who had come into contact with infected patients, according to the World Health Organization.

Ultimately, six people were infected, and two of them died. Though Kerala’s response to contain the outbreak drew international praise, the quick spread of the virus and its impact on tens of thousands of people illustrate what many scientists and world health leaders say is a weakness in public health policy: relying solely on disease containment. Governments, they say, must also control land development and protect animal habitats in areas where there is high risk of pathogens leaping from animals to people, a phenomenon known as spillover.

[...]

Reporters compared ecological conditions across the globe from 2002 through 2020 with those that existed at the time of past spillovers, identifying 9 million sq km – covering 6% of the Earth’s land mass – where conditions were ripe for pathogens to jump from bats to humans. Nearly 1.8 billion people lived in those jump zones in 2020, an increase of 57% since 2002.

The analysis focused on bats because they are linked to many of the deadliest disease outbreaks of the past half century, including the recent Covid-19 pandemic. Though its specific source is still unknown, the virus that causes Covid-19 is related to coronaviruses found in some horseshoe bats, a type common in tropical Asia. Kerala is one of the likeliest places on earth for spillover to occur, the analysis showed.

[...]

Nipah, which comes from bats and causes a lethal, brain-swelling fever in humans, has been linked to the deaths of two dozen people in Kerala since its first, surprise appearance here in 2018. A 1998-1999 epidemic in Malaysia killed at least 105. Hundreds more have died in near-annual outbreaks in Bangladesh since 2001. Nipah is classified as a priority pathogen by the WHO because of its potential to trigger an epidemic. There is no vaccine to prevent infection and no treatment to cure it.

edit: I guess not if the ban is months old

seriously, what the fuck is this about?

they've just outright banned the tag for an indian state that's home to over 34 million people

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Global Digital Divide: How App Bans on Facebook, WhatsApp, & TikTok Shape the Future of Online Connectivity

Written by Dr Michael Broadly, Retired Health Scientist and Public Health Consultant: Health Science Research Exploring the Impact of Social Media Restrictions on Billions for Balancing Security, Culture, and Access to Information in a Digitally Connected World We live on an exciting yet problematic planet where billions of people are connected, sharing stories, ideas, and moments in real-time,…

[hum-suffer]

The MASSACRES of KASHMIRI MUSLIMS by INDIAN FORCES

1. 1947 Jammu Massacres: 20,000-100,000 Muslims killed in communal riots by Dogra forces and Hindu mobs.

2. 1947-48 Rajouri Massacre: Hundreds of Muslims reportedly killed during the tribal invasion by Dogra forces.

3. 1947 Mirpur Massacre: Around 20,000 Muslims killed when Mirpur fell to Pakistani tribal raiders.

4. 1990 Gawkadal Massacre: CRPF opened fire on civilians in Srinagar on Jan 21, 1990 - 50 to 200+ civilians killed.

5. 1990 Handwara Massacre: On Jan 25,1990- BSF fired on unarmed people in Handwara, killing at least 31 civilians.

6. 1990 Zakoora and Tengpora Massacre: On Mar 1, 1990 - BSF killed 40+ unarmed protestors in Srinagar while suppressing a demonstration.

5. 1990 Hawal Massacre: On May 21,1990 - CRPF killed 60+ mourners in Srinagar during Mirwaiz Farooq's funeral procession.

6. 1993 Bijbehara Massacre: On Oct 22, 1993 -BSF fired on unarmed protestors in Bijbehara killing 35 to 51 civilians

7. 1993 Sopore Massacre: mourners in Srinagar during Mirwaiz Farooq's funeral procession.

8. 1993 Bijbehara Massacre: On Oct 22, 1993-BSF fired on unarmed protestors in Bijbehara, killing 35 to 51 civilians.

9. 1993 Sopore Massacre: On Jan 6, 1993 - BSF killed 43+ civilians and burned down Sopore market.

10. 1993 Lal Chowk Fire: Security forces allegedly set fire to the busy Lal Chowk market, exact casualties unknown

11. 1994 Kupwara Massacre: On Jan 27, 1994- Indian Army opened fire on protestors in Kupwara town, killing 27 civilians and shopkeepers.

Now please provide statistics of how many Hindus died in Kashmir? Will it cross the killings that happened to far of the Kashmiris?

You compared the Palestinian issue with Kashmir so you should know that Kashmir is an Indian OCCUPIED land. Just like how Israel has OCCUPIED Palestine. They are the colonizers. Quite similar issue actually. And the imbalance of injustice is apparent as well. The colonizers kill more. That's how they maintain power and oppression.

Here’s a clear list outlining how Kashmiris have faced oppression and occupation under Indian forces, based on historical and contemporary reports:

1. Heavy Military Presence

Kashmir is one of the most militarized zones in the world, with hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers deployed.

Military checkpoints, bunkers, and patrols are widespread, affecting everyday life.

2. Arbitrary Arrests and Detentions

Many Kashmiris, including minors, have been detained without trial under laws like the Public Safety Act (PSA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

3. Communication Blackouts

Internet shutdowns and phone service suspensions are frequent, especially during unrest, cutting Kashmiris off from the world.

4. Extrajudicial Killings

Numerous allegations exist of civilians being killed during military operations, often labeled as “militants” without investigation.

5. Torture and Abuse

Reports from human rights groups (like Amnesty International) document cases of physical and psychological torture by Indian forces.

6. Enforced Disappearances

Thousands of Kashmiris have disappeared after being taken into custody, with families left searching for decades.

7. Demographic Changes

Since 2019, India has changed residency laws, allowing non-Kashmiris to settle, raising fears of demographic engineering.

8. Media Censorship and Harassment

Kashmiri journalists face intimidation, arrests, and restrictions on reporting, especially if critical of Indian actions.

9. Crackdown on Religious Practices

Restrictions on gatherings, prayers at major mosques like Jamia Masjid, and religious mourning processions (especially Muharram) have been common.

10. Land Grabs

Large areas of land have been taken for military use, displacing local populations without fair compensation.

11. Psychological Trauma

Generations have grown up surrounded by violence, leading to widespread PTSD, depression, and anxiety among Kashmiris.

12. Revocation of Autonomy (Article 370)

In August 2019, India revoked Kashmir’s limited autonomy without Kashmiri consent, intensifying anger and repression.

13. Human Rights Violations Documented by International Organizations

UN reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others have repeatedly raised concerns about abuses in Kashmir.

Information is just a click away. Search Kashmir and Human Rights Watch. You'll get all the necessary information to give you a broader perspective.

Also, Kashmiris are being so apologetic for a crime they didn't commit, where is the apology from the Hindus for the daily atrocities that are being carried upon the Indian Muslim Minority? Do a quick search on how many Muslims are being daily killed in your land by the andbhakts. Not only the Muslims, which minority is safe in your land? Are the Christians safe? Are the dalits safe? Your religion yourself have an inhumane list of castes as if it is a moral hierarchy where is it is a racist system rotten to the core. Where is the apology for that?

Ek toh, the audacity you have to compare killings is baffling. I'm not touching those points with a ten foot pole, they're delusional beyond belief. One sided information much? There have been seven exoduses of Kashmiri Hindus, that have been recorded. Pillaging and plundering has always been done to this land, and I'll let you guess who were the perpetrators.

We do not blame Kashmiris for the attack, you fool. We blame the perpetrators and the people who call this horrifying act as "Hindu/BJP propaganda". And you talk about Minorities in India? Minorities enjoy several rights, which put them at par with (and sometimes above) the majority population. For fucks sakes, do you not know basic laws of this country that facilitate good life for the minorities? Yes, there are some extremists who would rather see people die and even commit such atrocities. Newsflash, kiddo, those are everywhere. Shall I copy paste a list of 77 terrorist organisations run by Muslim ideals?

Shall I recount how the youth of the Kashmir you so love have been led astray by several of such supremacists? Shall I tell you how they use financial services to manipulate literal children into the world of terrorism? And do not get me started on castes. The idea has been warped with time and if you do not know that basic of a fact, I wish to have no discussion with a willingly blind idiot.

Kashmiri people and the land itself have suffered under your wish to "free" it. Attacks like these are direct attacks on the integrity of the people as well as the financial situation of the state. Kashmir has historically been of the Indian people and you claim that we occupied it? If your source of information is "a click", run to your home, child.

So you will come here, list the selective atrocities committed, and demand an apology? Your history is written in the blood of innocents. No apology would be enough for that.

[misalpav]

I think in light of recent events, it should come to attention for a lot more people that the western education system needs MASSIVE upheaval especially in the social sciences. "World history", as taught in the United States (because that's where I live and is the system I know best, but from what I've seen, most of the west is like this) is just a ruse at best to focus on Eurocentric history for 7 months and spend the 8th and 9th touching on literally everywhere else. Before anyone says it, no it's not because European history is more relevant to America because the parts of European history that are relevant to the USA are touched on extensively through the almost 3-4 years of US specific history classes I had. Meanwhile, real conflict that actually does affect our daily life because of internet and social media like Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan, etc. were never mentioned and we were left shocked as those events transpired and rushed to learn about those histories.

I'm an Indian and a Hindu, so on that front I will also go ahead and say to America: what the absolute fuck? You had absolutely no qualms while teaching the practice of jauhar but couldn't mention that it was an act of desperation by women to salvage their dignity from the Muslim terrorists that wouldn't have wasted a second to r*pe or capture them. You went ahead and taught how Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal because he was upset his wife died but failed to mention the countless native people he killed and temples he desecrated. But you could never mention the native Hindu temples in India that stump modern architects? You could mention Aurangzeb and the Delhi Sultanate but not Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or Rani Rudramadevi because, according to you, the only important things that happened in India were the Muslim and British imperialists right? Then you wonder why, as a society, we struggle with hinduphobia and terrorist groups like the D*tbusters were given the confidence to exist but I don't actually think it's that surprising considering the narrative taught to children as early as middle and high school. Obviously, this narrative also expands to the countless other minorities that have their histories skewed like this, enabling continued bigotry. I think it's absolutely horrendous how the president of Harvard was able to say "it depends on the context" when it came to punishing antisemitism and still stay as faculty at the university with her high 6 figure salary. That kind of bullshit so high up in our educational structures is exactly what keeps fucking us over.

No, I'm not saying you need to go into the details for everything in the world either because that would be impossible, but what I am saying is history can and should be more equitable. In the United States, you can and should teach American history in detail and I have no issues with that (except for how "American history" itself is being watered down by politics and censorship but that's a whole other conversation), but I think 3 centuries after America got independence from the British, the fact that Henry VIII created a church j so he could divorce his first wife is just so unnecessary when people can't even distinguish the fact that Jesus was a Jew and Judaism is one of the oldest surviving religions and then use false information to hurl insults at the Jew community.

Obviously, a lot of what I said was addressed to America, but that definitely does not give the rest of the West a free pass.

[mariacallous]

TikTok’s day of reckoning in the US has arrived. On Friday, the United States Supreme Court will hear the company’s appeal against its slated nationwide ban, which could come into force in a little more than a week if the company’s efforts fail.

The social video app, which is owned by Chinese firm ByteDance and is used by around 170 million Americans, has been appealing the ban since US president Joe Biden signed the law underpinning it last year. The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) states that ByteDance must sell TikTok’s US business to a non-Chinese company by January 19—no buyer has yet been found—or see the app blocked in the US. Donald Trump, who retakes the White House on January 20, publicly originated the idea that ByteDance be forced to sell TikTok during his first presidential term but has since reversed course.

The Supreme Court, which is hearing the case quickly due to the impending deadline and following a federal court upholding the ban in December, will determine whether the US Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech is overruled by the government’s belief that TikTok is a threat to US national security. Proponents of PAFACA claim TikTok’s Chinese ownership could allow China to steal data on Americans and spread disinformation—although little evidence has been presented to support those claims, which the company denies.

If the court allows the ban to go ahead—and Trump doesn’t find a way to stop it—the move will be an unprecedented technological clampdown in the country.

“This is the first time we’ve seen a national-level ban that appears imminent in the United States,” says Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a distinguished technologist at the Internet Society. TikTok has been banned or faces lawsuits in other countries, such as India, and the pressures come against the backdrop of total internet shutdowns and increased online censorship. “What we learned from all of those is that this ends up really hurting the people of the country, that the economic effects are immediate for people,” Hall says.

So, how would TikTok actually be banned?

App Stores, Hosting Providers

Unpicking TikTok from the nation’s consciousness—thousands of influencers and businesses use the app to make money and promote themselves—is not exactly straightforward. Nor is it simple to untangle the company from US-based internet infrastructure.

PAFACA doesn’t require anyone to uninstall TikTok from their phones. It also doesn’t say TikTok should directly stop its services from working in the US. Instead, it effectively tries to throttle TikTok by making it harder to use over time and by stopping companies from providing services that help it to keep working and quickly loading videos.

TikTok, as with all companies mentioned in this story, did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment and hasn’t, at this stage, outlined what technical steps it will or will not take if the ban does eventually come into place.

The law says it will be “unlawful” for entities to “distribute, maintain or update” the app including its source code, or by “providing services” that allow it to keep running as it is now. This distribution, maintenance, or updates could be, the law says, by means of mobile app stores that can be accessed in the US or by “providing internet hosting services.”

“The law really deliberately avoided saying that it was illegal to have the app on your phone,” says Milton Mueller, a professor and cofounder of the Internet Governance Project at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in opposition of the ban. “Their attempt is to say nobody new can download it from the Apple or Google stores, and nobody who has it can update it through those stores,” Mueller says. “There’s nothing in the law that says ‘TikTok you must block US users,’ which is again interesting.”

If TikTok is removed from Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store in the US, it will not be possible to directly install new updates that will add new features, fix bugs within the code, or quash security flaws. Over time, that means TikTok will stop functioning properly. Apple didn’t respond to WIRED’s request for comment, while Google declined to comment on what it will do if the law comes into effect.

The law’s other focus is on stopping “hosting” companies from providing services to TikTok—and the definition is pretty wide. Hosting companies “may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting,” the law says. Since the summer of 2022, as TikTok faced pressure about its Chinese ownership, the company has hosted US user data within Oracle’s cloud services. Oracle also did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Even so, other systems such as content delivery networks, advertising networks, payment providers, and more are used as part of TikTok’s infrastructure. The law does not specifically mention these services, but differing legal readings could make them question whether they help to “maintain” or “distribute” TikTok’s fully functioning service.

Hall says a recent test of TikTok’s website showed 185 embedded domains on the page. “They pull in code, content from that array of third-party providers and their own domains too,” he says. “The apps will start to decay and rot as either services stop working, things like content distribution networks or services who feel like they can't take the risks of the ambiguous nature of the language or the potential enforcement by the incoming administration.”

There’s one internet infrastructure player that the ban does not specifically put pressure on: internet service providers. Countries such as Russia and China have developed censorship measures that allow them to block entire websites from being accessed through web bowsers. Mueller believes this omission by US lawmakers was likely deliberate, as it avoids setting up a Chinese-style internet firewall. “They knew that a system of ISP-based blocking and filtering would obviously be a form of First Amendment restriction,” he says.

Avoiding a TikTok Ban

While TikTok’s service in the US would likely degrade over time, there remain some potential ways around any ban—both for individuals and potentially also the company itself. How effective these measures would be likely depends on how motivated people are to keep using TikTok and what the company decides to do.

“TikTok has 170 million users,” says Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, who is in favor of the law but says it is the “best of a bunch of bad options” relating to TikTok. “This law will not prevent every one of them from accessing TikTok. I don’t think that was ever the goal of the law. The law is to make it meaningfully harder to access TikTok.”

Theoretically, at least, TikTok could shift its services providers—such as hosting companies or content delivery networks—to be based outside of the United States. Using technical infrastructure based abroad, for instance in Europe, could allow TikTok to be served to people in the US while operating within the bounds of the law.

While skirting the full-blown ban would allow people in the US to continue to use the app, that doesn’t mean the experience will be good. If videos are served from international locations, for example, load times may be slower for users, and it may be harder to upload videos. Using TikTok’s website isn’t the same experience as what the app provides, either. And that all depends on such a setup being possible at all.

“I do think that the number of companies that can do that, that are not headquartered in the US, is going to be small, especially considering how hard it is to switch from one cloud provider to another,” Hall says. “It’s really difficult depending on a number of factors.” Aside from technical challenges, international companies may not be willing to risk flying in the face of US restrictions, particularly under an aggressive Trump administration that has already threatened Greenland and economic penalties on other countries.

A TikTok ban would almost guarantee a spike in searches and downloads of virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow people to appear as if they are in a different geographic location to get around restrictions on content—for instance, trying to watch Netflix while abroad. Using a VPN within the US may allow the TikTok app to keep working, although it is unclear whether the company will place any restrictions on users it can determine are in the US by other means. The company’s support pages say SIM card registration details and other information can be used to pinpoint someone’s location.

Alternatively, it is likely Android users could download versions of TikTok outside of Google’s Play Store and install them on their devices. However, sideloading like this can come with security risks if the apps are not verified, and doing the same on an iPhone, via jailbreaking the device, is more technically complex.

Equally, moves such as changing locations of app stores to be outside of the US may come with unforeseen consequences and prove harder to maintain for general users in the long term. For instance, if you are changing an iCloud account’s location, Apple advises that you may need to cancel subscriptions and have a valid payment method for the location you are changing it to.

Prateek Waghre, a technology policy researcher based in India, where TikTok has been banned for four years and, despite an influx of some homegrown competitors, largely saw people move to Instagram Reels or YouTube’s Shorts, says overall restrictions on apps and websites weakens people’s experiences online and damages the internet as a whole.

“For many of us, [it is] the realization of one of our fears of a ‘splinternet,’” Waghre says. “You will have different kinds of access based on different geography, which is not what the experience of the internet was.”

[comeonamericawakeup]

U.S. internet giants like Google and Facebook have long since abandoned doing business in China, said Ryan Gallagher. Not Microsoft. Since 2009, it has "continued to run a local version of Bing in compliance with Beijing's censorship requirements." Last year, Bing even briefly overtook Baidu as China's top desktop search engine. Part of the reason for Microsoft's reluctance to leave China is its wealth of “technical talent.” China-based engineers are allowed to work on Microsoft's advanced Al projects, even though they are banned in China. But access to that talent is coming at the expense of internet freedoms. Microsoft has overseen "an expanding blacklist of thousands of websites, words, and phrases," covering everything from human rights to climate change. Terms such as "Communist Party corruption" or any references to "tank man" or the "Tiananmen Square massacre" are also on the blacklist. Searches for information about abuses of the Uighur population yield only "state media reports that deny" them. Other countries, such as India and Russia, "seeking to shut their populations off from politically inconvenient information" have taken note, and have started to ask Microsoft to take content off its search engine. Employees say "Microsoft has often complied," setting the stage for more censorship to come.

[shinylyni]

Look I understand the sentiment of "what will China even use our information for", and you're right, for the average person who lives outside of China there really isn't anything about your information being sold/used in China that's oh so different from your information being sold/used in the US, or Japan, or India, or anywhere else in the world.

But like. My family has been repeatedly targeted by the CCP for literally decades now. Even if I live in the States, I have close family members in mainland China who have been and continue to be targeted by the CCP. "What will China even use your information for"? The Chinese government can and will use anything I post online to target the people closest to me and take absolute glee in doing so.

And yeah not everything on the Internet is about me yadda yadda but that's why this is on my personal blog. It's a vent for myself and the people who know me and follow me and know my history.

So, no, I don't support TikTok. But even more than that, I also don't support the US banning a social media website or literally any website at all. Just because I personally have beef with TikTok and the CCP, has nothing to do with the fact that what the US government is trying to do is racist, sinophobic, and absolutely a form of censorship. And I'll clench my jaws and ball my hands into fists because I believe our government, the one I live under, should not have the right to declare where and how we get our information, and they should not have the authority to outright ban content from another country.

[rehanaalbert404]

When You Ban a Song Out of Fear, It’s Not About Security Anymore

A country that’s scared of a Coke Studio song is either really insecure — or really hiding something.

You know what’s wild?

One of the world’s so-called “largest democracies” just lost its cool — not over a war, not over a global crisis — but over memes. Over a song. Over a retired cricketer having fun on YouTube.

This isn’t even a joke. It happened. April 2025. The Pahalgam attack shook India — understandably, emotions were high. But what followed wasn’t a search for truth. It was a tantrum.

Instead of evidence, India served censorship.

Shoaib Akhtar, the guy who screams “boundary boundary chhakka chhakka” for fun — banned.

Coke Studio? Suddenly a threat.

Pakistani YouTube channels? Gone.

And while the Indian government was busy scrubbing the internet clean of anything remotely Pakistani, they forgot to answer a basic question: how does banning songs and commentary fight terrorism?

They even went after their own people. FWICE demanded treason charges on any Indian seen working with a Pakistani. Forget collaboration — people were scared to like anything cross-border.

It’s like Delhi is allergic to peace. Or joy. Or melody.

Meanwhile, Pakistanis did what they do best — laughed. Meme pages roasted Indian anchors. TikTokers turned Indian military men into punchlines. Lucky Bisht became the Sunny Deol your cousin told you not to worry about. And that other guy, Shivender Kanwar? Looked like he was trying to go viral on Reels, not defend a nation.

But here’s the thing. This isn’t just about memes. India’s crackdown is deeper. And darker.

Students got punished for watching a BBC documentary. Journalists in Kashmir were thrown behind bars. The government can now legally delete posts it doesn’t like. And they’ve shut down the internet more times than you’ve snoozed your alarm.

It’s like Delhi’s trying to turn the entire country into a giant quiet room. No noise. No opinions. Just whatever version of truth the government wants you to believe.

Then came the water threat.

India stood up and said, “We’ll stop Pakistan’s water!”

And Pakistan was like, “Cool. With what? Your vibes? Your buckets?”

Even Indian engineers admitted there’s no storage. No plan. Just drama.

What’s sad is, this isn’t strength. It’s fear — loud and insecure. It’s not a country standing tall. It’s a government hiding behind bans.

And while they scramble to silence everyone, Pakistan didn’t even need to say much.

The memes said it all. The calm response at international platforms said it all. Even silence, when placed beside Delhi’s chaos, became louder.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] Paromita Das New Delhi: In the ever-evolving landscape of entertainment, humor has undergone a radical transformation. The younger generation, particularly digital content creators, seems to have thrown traditional ethics and morality out the window in their relentless pursuit of attention. What was once regarded as inappropriate and offensive is now celebrated as edgy and bold. The desperation to go viral and garner social media engagement has led many to blur the lines between humor and outright vulgarity. The latest controversy surrounding stand-up comedian Swati Sachdeva is a glaring example of this decline. Her joke about her mother discovering her vibrator sparked outrage, with many criticizing it for being indecent and disrespectful. This incident follows a string of similar controversies, including those involving YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia and comedian Samay Raina, both of whom were condemned for their objectionable content. The question that now arises is: Is this just an evolution of comedy, or a sign of a deteriorating moral compass in society? Swati Sachdeva’s Joke: Comedy or Crudeness? Swati Sachdeva, known for her bold stand-up routines, recently posted a clip on YouTube where she narrated an awkward exchange with her mother regarding a personal object. While some defended the joke as lighthearted and modern, a large section of the audience felt uncomfortable with the subject matter. The joke crossed into the realm of family relationships, something that many believe should remain off-limits in comedy. The backlash was swift, with critics questioning the ethics of using explicit content to gain popularity. Many expressed their concerns on social media, arguing that such humor desensitizes audiences and erodes the sanctity of family bonds. The internet debate soon escalated, with people asking whether comedians should be held accountable for normalizing inappropriate themes in mainstream entertainment. The Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina Controversies: A Disturbing Trend? Swati Sachdeva’s controversy is not an isolated event. Just weeks before, YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia and comedian Samay Raina faced severe criticism for their inappropriate content. Allahbadia, during a show called India’s Got Latent, made an offensive remark to a contestant, leading to widespread outrage. The backlash forced him to issue a public apology, but the damage had already been done. Similarly, Samay Raina found himself in legal trouble after his performances were deemed obscene. The Maharashtra Cyber Police questioned him over multiple complaints, reigniting the debate on whether humor should have moral boundaries. These cases suggest that the trend of crossing ethical lines is becoming increasingly common, fueled by a culture that rewards controversy over meaningful content. The Normalization of Vulgarity in Digital Entertainment The rise of digital platforms has revolutionized the entertainment industry, but it has also created an environment where there are virtually no restrictions. Unlike traditional television and film, which are regulated by censorship boards, YouTube, Instagram, and other social media platforms allow unrestricted content. This has led to an explosion of explicit humor, often masked as “progressive” or “boundary-breaking” comedy. The younger generation, growing up in this unfiltered digital age, is becoming increasingly desensitized to vulgarity. What was once shocking or offensive is now considered normal. This shift has led to a dangerous precedent where comedians feel the need to constantly push the limits to remain relevant. Instead of crafting clever, witty jokes, many now resort to crude humor simply because it garners more attention. Impact on Society and Cultural Values The unchecked rise of explicit humor has far-reaching consequences, particularly on impressionable audiences. Young minds consuming this content may start to believe that respect, decency, and moral values are outdated concepts.

The normalization of vulgarity in comedy can erode fundamental social principles, leading to a culture where nothing is considered sacred anymore. One of the most concerning aspects of this trend is its effect on family relationships. In many cultures, particularly in Bharat, the family unit is revered as a foundational pillar of society. Jokes that make a mockery of family bonds, especially between parents and children, can weaken the values of respect and reverence that have been passed down through generations. Moreover, this type of humor can also lead to real-world consequences. The backlash against Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina, and now Swati Sachdeva proves that there is a limit to how much audiences are willing to tolerate. With increasing scrutiny from both the public and legal authorities, comedians and digital creators must recognize that not everything can be laughed off in the name of humor. The Case for Responsible Comedy Comedy has always been a powerful tool for social commentary, but it must be wielded responsibly. The argument that “comedy should have no limits” is flawed because, like all forms of expression, it carries a moral responsibility. Humor does not need to rely on shock value or vulgarity to be effective. Some of the greatest comedians in history, such as Charlie Chaplin and Robin Williams, used humor to enlighten and entertain without ever resorting to crude jokes. A well-crafted joke can be thought-provoking and funny without being offensive. Comedians must learn to strike a balance between freedom of expression and ethical responsibility. The goal should be to entertain while upholding a sense of decency, not to degrade societal values for the sake of temporary fame. A Call for a Cultural Reset The rise of explicit humor and declining moral standards in entertainment is a reflection of a larger cultural shift. The controversies surrounding Swati Sachdeva, Ranveer Allahbadia, and Samay Raina serve as reminders that there is a line that should not be crossed. Comedy is an art form that should be cherished, but it must not come at the expense of dignity and values. The new generation must realize that true humor lies in intelligence, wit, and relatability—not in cheap, vulgar jokes that disrespect fundamental human relationships. It is time for content creators and audiences alike to rethink what we consider acceptable in entertainment and work towards a culture that values quality humor over shock value. As society moves forward, the question we must ask is: Are we truly progressing in entertainment, or are we simply losing our moral compass in the name of comedy? The answer will determine the kind of world we create for future generations. The post Swati Sachdeva’s Viral Joke Ignites Outrage: The Rapid Decline of Moral Standards Among the New Generation appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] Paromita Das New Delhi: In the ever-evolving landscape of entertainment, humor has undergone a radical transformation. The younger generation, particularly digital content creators, seems to have thrown traditional ethics and morality out the window in their relentless pursuit of attention. What was once regarded as inappropriate and offensive is now celebrated as edgy and bold. The desperation to go viral and garner social media engagement has led many to blur the lines between humor and outright vulgarity. The latest controversy surrounding stand-up comedian Swati Sachdeva is a glaring example of this decline. Her joke about her mother discovering her vibrator sparked outrage, with many criticizing it for being indecent and disrespectful. This incident follows a string of similar controversies, including those involving YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia and comedian Samay Raina, both of whom were condemned for their objectionable content. The question that now arises is: Is this just an evolution of comedy, or a sign of a deteriorating moral compass in society? Swati Sachdeva’s Joke: Comedy or Crudeness? Swati Sachdeva, known for her bold stand-up routines, recently posted a clip on YouTube where she narrated an awkward exchange with her mother regarding a personal object. While some defended the joke as lighthearted and modern, a large section of the audience felt uncomfortable with the subject matter. The joke crossed into the realm of family relationships, something that many believe should remain off-limits in comedy. The backlash was swift, with critics questioning the ethics of using explicit content to gain popularity. Many expressed their concerns on social media, arguing that such humor desensitizes audiences and erodes the sanctity of family bonds. The internet debate soon escalated, with people asking whether comedians should be held accountable for normalizing inappropriate themes in mainstream entertainment. The Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina Controversies: A Disturbing Trend? Swati Sachdeva’s controversy is not an isolated event. Just weeks before, YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia and comedian Samay Raina faced severe criticism for their inappropriate content. Allahbadia, during a show called India’s Got Latent, made an offensive remark to a contestant, leading to widespread outrage. The backlash forced him to issue a public apology, but the damage had already been done. Similarly, Samay Raina found himself in legal trouble after his performances were deemed obscene. The Maharashtra Cyber Police questioned him over multiple complaints, reigniting the debate on whether humor should have moral boundaries. These cases suggest that the trend of crossing ethical lines is becoming increasingly common, fueled by a culture that rewards controversy over meaningful content. The Normalization of Vulgarity in Digital Entertainment The rise of digital platforms has revolutionized the entertainment industry, but it has also created an environment where there are virtually no restrictions. Unlike traditional television and film, which are regulated by censorship boards, YouTube, Instagram, and other social media platforms allow unrestricted content. This has led to an explosion of explicit humor, often masked as “progressive” or “boundary-breaking” comedy. The younger generation, growing up in this unfiltered digital age, is becoming increasingly desensitized to vulgarity. What was once shocking or offensive is now considered normal. This shift has led to a dangerous precedent where comedians feel the need to constantly push the limits to remain relevant. Instead of crafting clever, witty jokes, many now resort to crude humor simply because it garners more attention. Impact on Society and Cultural Values The unchecked rise of explicit humor has far-reaching consequences, particularly on impressionable audiences. Young minds consuming this content may start to believe that respect, decency, and moral values are outdated concepts.

The normalization of vulgarity in comedy can erode fundamental social principles, leading to a culture where nothing is considered sacred anymore. One of the most concerning aspects of this trend is its effect on family relationships. In many cultures, particularly in Bharat, the family unit is revered as a foundational pillar of society. Jokes that make a mockery of family bonds, especially between parents and children, can weaken the values of respect and reverence that have been passed down through generations. Moreover, this type of humor can also lead to real-world consequences. The backlash against Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina, and now Swati Sachdeva proves that there is a limit to how much audiences are willing to tolerate. With increasing scrutiny from both the public and legal authorities, comedians and digital creators must recognize that not everything can be laughed off in the name of humor. The Case for Responsible Comedy Comedy has always been a powerful tool for social commentary, but it must be wielded responsibly. The argument that “comedy should have no limits” is flawed because, like all forms of expression, it carries a moral responsibility. Humor does not need to rely on shock value or vulgarity to be effective. Some of the greatest comedians in history, such as Charlie Chaplin and Robin Williams, used humor to enlighten and entertain without ever resorting to crude jokes. A well-crafted joke can be thought-provoking and funny without being offensive. Comedians must learn to strike a balance between freedom of expression and ethical responsibility. The goal should be to entertain while upholding a sense of decency, not to degrade societal values for the sake of temporary fame. A Call for a Cultural Reset The rise of explicit humor and declining moral standards in entertainment is a reflection of a larger cultural shift. The controversies surrounding Swati Sachdeva, Ranveer Allahbadia, and Samay Raina serve as reminders that there is a line that should not be crossed. Comedy is an art form that should be cherished, but it must not come at the expense of dignity and values. The new generation must realize that true humor lies in intelligence, wit, and relatability—not in cheap, vulgar jokes that disrespect fundamental human relationships. It is time for content creators and audiences alike to rethink what we consider acceptable in entertainment and work towards a culture that values quality humor over shock value. As society moves forward, the question we must ask is: Are we truly progressing in entertainment, or are we simply losing our moral compass in the name of comedy? The answer will determine the kind of world we create for future generations. The post Swati Sachdeva’s Viral Joke Ignites Outrage: The Rapid Decline of Moral Standards Among the New Generation appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[ojasyaulfatalevels]

Media Accessibility in India: Bridging the Digital Divide

Media accessibility is key to shaping public agenda and awareness. In a multicultural country like India, it matters that we understand how people access media, the limitations they face, and what these say about the future. Our instructor recently conducted an exercise in class where we examined media accessibility in India, Mumbai to be precise, and how it influences agenda-setting.

India boasts a vast media landscape, and there are numerous instruments available for individuals to consume news and information. Television remains a staple, especially in rural India, but smartphones and the internet are dominating urban landscapes such as Mumbai. Social media platforms such as WhatsApp, YouTube, and Twitter are significant sources of news dissemination, aside from traditional print media and radio.

Despite this expansion, access is unequal. The urban-rural divide, economic disparity, language multiplicity, and varying levels of education shape access to the media. As Mumbai and other cities approach universal connectivity, the countryside still lags behind in terms of digital infrastructure. Although mobile data has decreased in price, smartphones and digital subscriptions are not within the reach of large numbers of people.

There are several limitations that hinder media access, including digital divide, government policies, censorship, disinformation, and paid media. These limitations restrict access to information, shape public opinion, and in certain instances limit democratic participation. Fake news is a serious issue, which thrives when there is restricted access to authentic media.

Agenda-setting theory describes how media leads public discourse by selecting which matters to prioritize. Our classroom discussion indicated how this varies in India. In urban areas, digital media dictates the discourse, but rural citizens are reliant on traditional sources to a greater extent, and thus there's a disparity in public consciousness. We learned from this activity that bridging the digital divide, providing unbiased reporting, and enhancing digital literacy are crucial to equitable media access. The discussion provided a better understanding of media dynamics and their real-world implications.

[surajydv]

Understanding Pornography Laws in Asian Countries: A Comprehensive Guide

In today’s interconnected world, the accessibility of explicit content has sparked global conversations about its regulation and societal impact. While pornography is widely consumed online, its legality varies dramatically across regions. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the laws surrounding pornography in Asian countries , exploring how cultural values, religious beliefs, and government policies shape these regulations. Whether you're a researcher, business owner, or simply curious, this guide will provide valuable insights into the complex legal landscape of adult content in Asia.

What Are Pornography Laws?

Pornography laws are legal frameworks that govern the production, distribution, sale, and consumption of sexually explicit material. These laws aim to strike a delicate balance between protecting public morality, ensuring freedom of expression, and safeguarding vulnerable groups like minors.

In many Asian countries, cultural and religious traditions heavily influence these laws, resulting in stricter regulations compared to Western nations. Understanding these nuances is crucial for anyone navigating the legalities of adult content in Asia.

Overview of Pornography Laws in Key Asian Countries

1. Japan

Japan has a unique approach to regulating pornography:

Legal but Censored: While the production and sale of adult content are legal, all genitalia must be pixelated or obscured due to obscenity laws.

Child Pornography Ban: Possession, production, and distribution of child pornography were criminalized in 2014.

Softcore Content: Non-explicit adult content (e.g., erotic videos without intercourse) is widely available and culturally accepted.

Despite strict censorship rules, Japan’s adult entertainment industry remains one of the largest globally, contributing significantly to its economy.

2. South Korea

South Korea enforces stringent measures against pornography:

Illegal Production and Distribution: The creation, sale, or distribution of pornography is illegal under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.

Online Enforcement: Authorities actively monitor and block websites hosting explicit content, including foreign platforms.

Revenge Porn Laws: Sharing intimate images without consent is punishable by imprisonment, reflecting the country’s efforts to combat cybercrimes.

These laws reflect South Korea’s conservative societal norms and emphasis on protecting public decency.

3. India

India takes a highly restrictive stance toward pornography:

Obscenity Laws: Under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, the sale, distribution, or exhibition of obscene materials is prohibited.

Selective Enforcement: While outright bans on adult content have been proposed, enforcement remains inconsistent, with many websites operating in legal gray areas.

Moral and Religious Influences: Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity—all major religions in India—play a role in shaping attitudes toward explicit content.

Despite these restrictions, piracy and unregulated access to online pornography remain prevalent challenges.

4. China

China imposes some of the strictest controls on pornography worldwide:

Complete Ban: The production, sale, and distribution of any form of pornography are strictly prohibited.

Internet Censorship: Websites hosting adult content are blocked through the "Great Firewall," making it nearly impossible for citizens to access such material legally.

Public Morality Campaigns: The government regularly conducts crackdowns on underground industries involved in producing or distributing illicit content.

These measures align with China’s broader efforts to maintain social stability and uphold Confucian values.

5. Thailand

Thailand’s approach to pornography is nuanced:

Technically Illegal: Producing or selling adult content is illegal under Thai law.

Widespread Availability: Despite legal prohibitions, adult entertainment thrives in red-light districts and online platforms catering to tourists.

Focus on Child Exploitation: Authorities prioritize combating child pornography and human trafficking over enforcing general anti-pornography laws.

This duality highlights the tension between tradition and tourism in shaping Thailand’s regulatory environment.

6. Philippines

The Philippines enforces moderate regulations:

Obscenity Laws: Similar to India, the Philippines prohibits obscene publications under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.

Cybercrime Prevention Act: This law addresses online offenses, including the distribution of explicit materials involving minors.

Growing Industry Concerns: With increasing internet penetration, authorities face challenges in policing illegal content while respecting constitutional rights.

These policies underscore the Philippines’ attempt to modernize its legal framework amidst evolving digital realities.

Key Trends Shaping Modern Pornography Laws in Asia

Several trends influence contemporary legislation in Asian countries:

Digitalization and Online Access: The proliferation of smartphones and high-speed internet complicates enforcement, prompting governments to adopt advanced monitoring technologies.

Human Rights Advocacy: Activists push back against overly restrictive laws, arguing they infringe on personal freedoms and fail to address root causes of exploitation.

Religious Influence: In predominantly Muslim nations like Indonesia and Malaysia, Sharia-inspired laws strictly prohibit pornography, reflecting deep-seated religious convictions.

Economic Considerations: Some countries weigh the economic benefits of their adult entertainment industries against moral objections, leading to selective enforcement.

Global Pressure: International organizations advocate for stronger protections against child exploitation and non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

Why Do Pornography Laws Matter in Asia?

Effective regulation ensures that pornography does not undermine cultural values, exploit vulnerable populations, or promote harmful behaviors. By addressing challenges such as child exploitation, revenge porn, and unethical practices, lawmakers strive to create safer environments both online and offline.

For businesses operating in or targeting Asian markets, understanding local laws is essential to avoid legal repercussions. Meanwhile, consumers benefit from transparent policies that prioritize safety, privacy, and respect.

Conclusion

Navigating the intricate web of pornography laws in Asian countries requires an appreciation of diverse cultural, religious, and political contexts. From Japan’s censored yet thriving industry to China’s absolute prohibition, each nation adopts unique strategies tailored to its specific needs and priorities.

As society continues to grapple with the implications of explicit content, staying informed about these regulations empowers individuals, businesses, and policymakers to engage responsibly with this sensitive topic. If you found this guide helpful, share it with others who might benefit from learning more about pornography laws in Asia. Together, let’s foster knowledge, accountability, and meaningful dialogue!

[crowns-of-violets-and-roses]

About your post about places with more restrictive free speech laws - I'm interested in learning more about that, do you have any examples of "lèse-majesté or libel laws being abused to silence criticism of the powerful or hate speech laws being weaponised against anti-Zionists or suppression of the free press or fucking obscenity laws"? It would be a great help to jumpstart my research. I'll go looking myself too. Thanks!

So, this is mostly something that my impression has been formed by various news stories I've read over the years rather than something I've made a serious study of but I've outlined some of the examples I was thinking of below and hope that's a little helpful.

Lèse-majesté is something you often here of in relation to Thailand which has strict laws on respecting the monarchy. One protestor faced sixteen years for insulting the monarchy when she was fifteen. Many other countries have similar draconian laws on not insulting the head of state (or the government in general).

The UK is the usual example of a country with terrible libel laws, though have they improved substantially in the last decade or so. The infamous McLibel case saw environmental activists dragged through the courts for libel by McDonalds who won in the British courts with the ECHR partially overturning the judgements against the activists.

In Ireland an anti-gay marriage group won a settlement for libel when a drag queen called them homophobic.

Germany uses accusations of antisemitism to attack anyone, including Jewish people, who supports Palestine. They've used claims about hate speech to shut down protest.

Canada cease gay porn at the US border for having watersports scenes.

Reporters in Hong Kong have been jailed for sedition. Many other newspapers and those working for them faced similar suppression during the Hong Kong protests.

Disco Elysium was refused classification in Australia and they've been ridiculously strict on video games for years particularly around depictions of drugs. In Fallout 3 morphine was renamed Med-X to prevent so it could be sold.

In India Modi has been ramping up internet censorship.

Ada Palmer, a historian and author, has led an interesting project on censorship which is worth a look at if you're interested in this stuff. There's lots more examples but as I've said it's not a subject I've made a serious study of so I don't have them to hand. My followers may have additional thoughts?

[mariacallous]

It no longer makes sense to speak of free speech in traditional terms. The internet has so transformed the nature of the speaker that the definition of speech itself has changed.

The new speech is governed by the allocation of virality. People cannot simply speak for themselves, for there is always a mysterious algorithm in the room that has independently set the volume of the speaker’s voice. If one is to be heard, one must speak in part to one’s human audience, in part to the algorithm. It is as if the US Constitution had required citizens to speak through actors or lawyers who answered to the Dutch East India Company, or some other large remote entity. What power should these intermediaries have? When the very logic of speech must shift in order for people to be heard, is that still free speech? This was not a problem foreseen in the law.

The time may be right for a legal and policy reset. US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning Section 230, the liability shield that enshrined the ad-driven internet. The self-reinforcing ramifications of a mere 26 words—“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”—has produced a social media ecosystem that is widely held to have had deleterious effects on both democracy and mental health.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with the famous quip about how you cannot fool all the people all the time. Perhaps you cannot, but perhaps the internet can. Imperfect speech has always existed, but the means and scale of amplification have not. The old situation cannot be the guide for the new.

Section 230 was created during a period when policy was being designed to unleash internet innovation, thereby maintaining America’s competitive edge in cyberspace. The early internet was supported by a variety of friendly policies, not just Section 230. For instance, sales arranged over the internet were often not taxed in early years. Furthermore, the internet was knowingly inaugurated in an incomplete state, lacking personal accounts, authentication mechanisms, commercial transaction standards, and many other needed elements. The thinking was not only that it was easier to get a minimal design started when computing power was still nascent, but also that the missing elements would be addressed by entrepreneurs. In effect, we were giving trillion-dollar gifts to parties unknown who would be the inevitable network-effect winners.

Section 230 was enacted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a larger legislative effort within the umbrella 1996 Telecommunications Act. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity for online services regarding user-generated content, ensuring the companies hosting content are not treated as publishers of this information. Section 230(c)(2) offers Good Samaritan protection from civil liability when the companies—or platforms, as we call them today—in good faith remove or moderate objectionable content.

After President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act into law, it was unclear how the courts might interpret it. When the dust cleared, Section 230 emerged as something of a double-edged sword. It could be used to justify censorship, and at the same time be deployed as a corporate liability shield. Most importantly, it provided the runway for the takeoff of Google, Twitter, and Facebook. (And now TikTok—which, being a Chinese company, proves that Section 230 no longer serves American interests.)

The impact on the public sphere has been, to say the least, substantial. In removing so much liability, Section 230 forced a certain sort of business plan into prominence, one based not on uniquely available information from a given service, but on the paid arbitration of access and influence. Thus, we ended up with the deceptively named “advertising” business model—and a whole society thrust into a 24/7 competition for attention. A polarized social media ecosystem. Recommender algorithms that mediate content and optimize for engagement. We have learned that humans are most engaged, at least from an algorithm’s point of view, by rapid-fire emotions related to fight-or-flight responses and other high-stakes interactions. In enabling the privatization of the public square, Section 230 has inadvertently rendered impossible deliberation between citizens who are supposed to be equal before the law. Perverse incentives promote cranky speech, which effectively suppresses thoughtful speech.

And then there is the economic imbalance. Internet platforms that rely on Section 230 tend to harvest personal data for their business goals without appropriate compensation. Even when data ought to be protected or prohibited by copyright or some other method, Section 230 often effectively places the onus on the violated party through the requirement of takedown notices. That switch in the order of events related to liability is comparable to the difference between opt-in and opt-out in privacy. It might seem like a technicality, but it is actually a massive difference that produces substantial harms. For example, workers in information-related industries such as local news have seen stark declines in economic success and prestige. Section 230 makes a world of data dignity functionally impossible.

To date, content moderation has too often been beholden to the quest for attention and engagement, regularly disregarding the stated corporate terms of service. Rules are often bent to maximize engagement through inflammation, which can mean doing harm to personal and societal well-being. The excuse is that this is not censorship, but is it really not? Arbitrary rules, doxing practices, and cancel culture have led to something hard to distinguish from censorship for the sober and well-meaning. At the same time, the amplification of incendiary free speech for bad actors encourages mob rule. All of this takes place under Section 230’s liability shield, which effectively gives tech companies carte blanche for a short-sighted version of self-serving behavior. Disdain for these companies—which found a way to be more than carriers, and yet not publishers—is the only thing everyone in America seems to agree on now.

Trading a known for an unknown is always terrifying, especially for those with the most to lose. Since at least some of Section 230’s network effects were anticipated at its inception, it should have had a sunset clause. It did not. Rather than focusing exclusively on the disruption that axing 26 words would spawn, it is useful to consider potential positive effects. When we imagine a post-230 world, we discover something surprising: a world of hope and renewal worth inhabiting.

In one sense, it’s already happening. Certain companies are taking steps on their own, right now, toward a post-230 future. YouTube, for instance, is diligently building alternative income streams to advertising, and top creators are getting more options for earning. Together, these voluntary moves suggest a different, more publisher-like self-concept. YouTube is ready for the post-230 era, it would seem. (On the other hand, a company like X, which leans hard into 230, has been destroying its value with astonishing velocity.) Plus, there have always been exceptions to Section 230. For instance, if someone enters private information, there are laws to protect it in some cases. That means dating websites, say, have the option of charging fees instead of relying on a 230-style business model. The existence of these exceptions suggests that more examples would appear in a post-230 world.

Let’s return to speech. One difference between speech before and after the internet was that the scale of the internet “weaponized” some instances of speech that would not have been as significant before. An individual yelling threats at someone in passing, for instance, is quite different from a million people yelling threats. This type of amplified, stochastic harassment has become a constant feature of our times—chilling speech—and it is possible that in a post-230 world, platforms would be compelled to prevent it. It is sometimes imagined that there are only two choices: a world of viral harassment or a world of top-down smothering of speech. But there is a third option: a world of speech in which viral harassment is tamped down but ideas are not. Defining this middle option will require some time to sort out, but it is doable without 230, just as it is possible to define the limits of viral financial transactions to make Ponzi schemes illegal.

With this accomplished, content moderation for companies would be a vastly simpler proposition. Companies need only uphold the First Amendment, and the courts would finally develop the precedents and tests to help them do that, rather than the onus of moderation being entirely on companies alone. The United States has more than 200 years of First Amendment jurisprudence that establishes categories of less protected speech—obscenity, defamation, incitement, fighting words—to build upon, and Section 230 has effectively impeded its development for online expression. The perverse result has been the elevation of algorithms over constitutional law, effectively ceding judicial power.

When the jurisprudential dust has cleared, the United States would be exporting the democracy-promoting First Amendment to other countries rather than Section 230’s authoritarian-friendly liability shield and the sewer of least-common-denominator content that holds human attention but does not bring out the best in us. In a functional democracy, after all, the virtual public square should belong to everyone, so it is important that its conversations are those in which all voices can be heard. This can only happen with dignity for all, not in a brawl.

Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today’s social media companies are common carriers like the phone companies that preceded them, but they are not. Unlike Ma Bell, they curate the content they transmit to users. We need a robust public conversation about what we, the people, want this space to look like, and what practices and guardrails are likely to strengthen the ties that bind us in common purpose as a democracy. Virality might come to be understood as an enemy of reason and human values. We can have culture and conversations without a mad race for total attention.

While Section 230 might have been considered more a target for reform rather than repeal prior to the advent of generative AI, it can no longer be so. Social media could be a business success even if its content was nonsense. AI cannot.

There have been suggestions that AI needs Section 230 because large language models train on data and will be better if that data is freely usable with no liabilities or encumbrances. This notion is incorrect. People want more from AI than entertainment. It is widely considered an important tool for productivity and scientific progress. An AI model is only as good as the data it is trained on; indeed, general data improves specialist results. The best AI will come out of a society that prioritizes quality communication. By quality communication, we do not mean deepfakes. We mean open and honest dialog that fosters understanding rather than vitriol, collaboration rather than polarization, and the pursuit of knowledge and human excellence rather than a race to the bottom of the brain stem.

The attention-grooming model fostered by Section 230 leads to stupendous quantities of poor-quality data. While an AI model can tolerate a significant amount of poor-quality data, there is a limit. It is unrealistic to imagine a society mediated by mostly terrible communication where that same society enjoys unmolested, high-quality AI. A society must seek quality as a whole, as a shared cultural value, in order to maximize the benefits of AI. Now is the best time for the tech business to mature and develop business models based on quality.

All of this might sound daunting, but we’ve been here before. When the US government said the American public owned the airwaves so that television broadcasting could be regulated, it put in place regulations that supported the common good. The internet affects everyone, so we must devise measures to ensure that our digital-age public discourse is of high quality and includes everyone. In the television era, the fairness doctrine laid that groundwork. A similar lens needs to be developed for the internet age.

Without Section 230, recommender algorithms and the virality they spark would be less likely to distort speech. It is sadly ironic that the very statute that delivered unfathomable success is today serving the interests of our enemies by compromising America’s superpower: our multinational, immigrant-powered constitutional democracy. The time has come to unleash the power of the First Amendment to promote human free speech by giving Section 230 the respectful burial it deserves.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Government Bans on Bitcoin? Why They’ll Fail Every Time

For over a decade, governments around the world have tried—and failed—to stop Bitcoin. China has banned it multiple times, India has wavered between outlawing and taxing it, and even the U.S. has thrown legal roadblocks in its path. Yet Bitcoin keeps marching forward, completely unfazed.

Why? Because Bitcoin isn’t just another financial asset that can be confiscated or controlled—it’s a decentralized, borderless movement. Governments can try to ban it, but history shows that censorship resistance always wins.

A History of Failed Bitcoin Bans

Bitcoin has been declared dead more times than anyone can count, and yet, like clockwork, it keeps proving the skeptics wrong.

Take China, for example. In 2013, they announced their first major crackdown, forbidding banks from handling Bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin didn’t die. Instead, it went underground. By 2017, China banned exchanges, but people simply moved to peer-to-peer markets. In 2021, they went all in—completely outlawing mining and trading. And what happened? The Bitcoin network barely flinched. Miners relocated, the hash rate recovered, and Bitcoin adoption surged in regions where people needed it most.

Nigeria tried something similar in 2021, restricting banks from facilitating Bitcoin transactions. But instead of killing adoption, it sent peer-to-peer trading into overdrive. Within months, Nigeria became one of the top countries for Bitcoin usage, proving that when governments try to cut off access, people just find new ways to use it.

Even India, a country that once considered banning Bitcoin outright, eventually realized the futility of that move. Now, instead of banning it, they’ve imposed a hefty tax on crypto transactions—essentially admitting they’d rather make money off of Bitcoin than try to stop it.

Why Governments Can’t Ban Bitcoin

Here’s the fundamental problem: Bitcoin doesn’t have an off switch.

Unlike a corporation or a traditional financial system, Bitcoin has no CEO, no central office, and no one to arrest. It runs on a decentralized network of thousands of nodes across the world. Shutting it down would mean shutting down the entire internet—an impossible task.

Even if governments block exchanges, people can still trade Bitcoin peer-to-peer through decentralized platforms like Bisq, RoboSats, and the Lightning Network. And even if they crack down on those, Bitcoin transactions can be sent via satellite, mesh networks, or even radio waves. Bitcoin is just code, and as long as people can run the software, it will continue to exist.

The Streisand Effect: Why Banning Bitcoin Makes It Stronger

There’s an ironic twist to every attempt at banning Bitcoin: it only makes people more aware of why they need it.

When China banned Bitcoin mining, it sparked a global conversation about financial freedom. When Nigeria restricted Bitcoin transactions, it highlighted how fragile government-controlled money really is. Every time a country cracks down on Bitcoin, more people wake up to the reality that their wealth isn’t safe in the hands of politicians.

It’s the Streisand Effect in full force—the more you try to suppress something, the more attention it gets. And with Bitcoin, that attention turns into adoption.

The Future: Bitcoin vs. CBDCs

Governments aren’t giving up. Their latest strategy? Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)—programmable digital money controlled entirely by the state. Unlike Bitcoin, CBDCs allow governments to track every transaction, freeze accounts at will, and impose spending restrictions based on social credit scores. It’s surveillance money, disguised as progress.

But here’s the thing: CBDCs only work if people accept them. And the more people understand Bitcoin, the less likely they are to embrace a system designed for total financial control.

Bitcoin Doesn’t Need Permission

Governments can fight it, ban it, regulate it, and try to slow it down. But they can’t stop it. Bitcoin is more than just money—it’s an idea. And ideas can’t be banned.

So, while politicians keep playing their game of whack-a-mole, Bitcoin continues to do what it was designed to do: provide financial freedom to anyone, anywhere, without permission.

Tick tock, next block.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there’s so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you’re a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

📚 Get the Book: The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 For those who want to take an even deeper dive, my book offers a transformative look at the financial revolution we’re living through. The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 explores the philosophy, history, and future of money, all while challenging the status quo and inspiring action toward true financial independence.

Support the Cause

If you enjoyed what you read and believe in the mission of spreading awareness about Bitcoin, I would greatly appreciate your support. Every little bit helps keep the content going and allows me to continue educating others about the future of finance.

Donate Bitcoin: 

bc1qpn98s4gtlvy686jne0sr8ccvfaxz646kk2tl8lu38zz4dvyyvflqgddylk